Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the voting rights of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies in relation to matters which only affect England.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be fair or democratic for hon. Members from Scottish constituencies to vote on matters that affect only England? The only reason why proposals have not been introduced to address that anomaly is that it would be to the Government's electoral disadvantage.

Alex Salmond: May I associate the Scottish National party with the Secretary of State's remarks about Mr. Speaker and our hope for his early restoration to the Chair and to good health?
	Let me understand this issue correctly. English Conservative MPs are revolting because the Secretary of State for Scotland is threatening to vote on English education with the Prime Minister, and with English Conservative MPs, but against what any normal person in England would like. Can the Secretary of State for Scotland therefore stop upsetting the revolting English Conservative MPs and undertake not to agree with them or to vote with them on the English Education and Inspections Bill?

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to work out which one of his leadership candidates he will be supporting, since I have not heard such a clear exposition of a principled position for some time. The key principle is that we are all elected to the House of Commons in the same way and are all entitled to take part in all the proceedings and Divisions. Once that changes and there are two classes of MPs, there are profound constitutional consequences. What we have from the Conservatives is sheer, naked opportunism. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am looking forward to him explaining why he has managed to vote on so many measures that affect purely English matters, given that he claims that he will not do so on a matter of principle.

David Cairns: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the progress that he is making with his private Member's Bill, which will make a considerable contribution to the debate. I understand that the Committee considering it has a further sitting this afternoon. He is right to highlight the Government's commitment to marine renewables. I welcome, as he does, the announcement on 8 February by the Minister for Energy of a £50 million marine renewable development fund, building on the £25 million that has already been made available. The company that my hon. Friend mentions, Ocean Power Delivery, has already benefited from some £3.2 million of this development money. The deadline for applications is 8 May, so there is some time left. I look forward to that money going out to those who are successful in getting a grant so that they can carry on with research into the important contribution that marine renewables can make to our energy commitments.

Stephen Hepburn: In the past decade, one casualty a week on average has occurred on the A1 between Scotland and Newcastle. The road accidents and the road's effect on economic development cause considerable anxiety to residents both sides of the border. When will my right hon. Friend, in his role as Secretary of State for Scotland, convince himself in his role as Secretary of State for Transport for the United Kingdom that the road needs dualling once and for all?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and I agree with it. The difficulty for the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—the solitary Conservative spokesman—is that in the past year he has voted on a range of matters relating to, for instance, English dentistry, English health care, English education and English local government. I find it hard to believe that he has now discovered a principle according to which he should not vote on those matters. He should recall that his predecessor, the previous Conservative Member, said that he did not vote on English matters, but we learnt that he had voted on the Mersey Tunnels Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman is getting into a huge amount of trouble. As I have said, it is all driven by the Tories' frustration at not being able to get anyone elected north of the border.

David Gauke: I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
	Next month various Scottish right hon. and hon. Members will support the Education and Inspections Bill, including the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Conservative Members will welcome them in the Lobbies on that occasion. Is it not the case, though, that the Bill will not apply to Scotland, and that it is wrong and unfair—and, indeed, recognised to be wrong and unfair by many Labour Members—for MPs to vote on a matter that does not affect their constituencies?

Alistair Darling: Of course, the constituents of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) go and enjoy an English education south of the border. He therefore has an interest in voting for the Bill, although he does not seem to accept that.
	As I have told the House before, it is difficult to differentiate between matters that are wholly Scottish, wholly English or wholly Welsh and matters that are not. We find ourselves in difficulty when we start saying that some MPs have more rights than others. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and his colleagues ought to think long and hard before taking a route that is more likely than not to lead to exactly where the nationalists would like them to end up.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should have read the original question, which is centred on Barnet. Although she can allude to London, she cannot major on another London borough within the scope of this question.

Greg Hands: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does she accept that our democracy is being damaged by unequal representation in this House? In that regard, I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) in respect of his Parliamentary Constituencies (Equalisation) Bill. There are 239 constituencies in this country that diverge by more than 10 per cent. from the national average. They are not confined to English rural areas: my constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham in inner London has 79,807 electors, is the 57th largest in the UK and is more than 16 per cent. larger than the average. What proposals does she have to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to correct those undemocratic disparities and to make more frequent boundary reviews—

Clive Betts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the Government's policy in respect of equalising the number of residents who are eligible to be registered as electors in each parliamentary constituency? That is a more important question. Merely to equalise the number of people registered would discriminate against people in the inner cities and those who live in private rented accommodation or houses of multiple occupation or belong to the black and ethnic minority communities. All of those people are less likely to register in practice.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that although the Electoral Commission has independent status, it needs clear transparent accountability too? Does she think that reporting to the Speaker's Committee fulfils that function?

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware that for people who achieve the feat of obtaining a small claims court ruling there is then a major bureaucratic obstacle course involving four separate processes, in each of which there are up to three consecutive applications to the courts with form-filling? Can she get rid of some of that red tape?

Nigel Griffiths: Would that all right hon. and hon. Members shared the optimistic and progressive view of the hon. Gentleman, but the sad fact is that when looking at programme motions of one kind or another over a couple decades I do not consider that pre-legislative scrutiny or any other parliamentary mechanism for scrutiny would stop the inexorable trend for Oppositions to maximise the time for programme motions to complain that there is not enough time. However, I do not want to depart from the present all-party consensus; we support pre-legislative scrutiny and think it should be extended as far as is practical, but there are cases where it is not appropriate or practical.

Norman Baker: That is a grotesque sum of money to spend on such a feature. Is my hon. Friend aware that while almost £500,000 was being thrown away on that absurdity the energy efficiency budget of the House has been cut by 40 per cent. since 1997 and electricity consumption has gone up by 45 per cent? Is not it time that he brought some sanity, common sense and clarity to the House of Commons Commission?

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that commitment, but he will know that it has been some years since the proposal for a major change in the scrutiny of EU legislation was first discussed by the House. It is accepted across the House and beyond that scrutinising EU legislation is not something that we do well, so can he give us a bit more specific indication of when the proposals will be made?

Nigel Griffiths: There have been ongoing discussions and changes in the way that we scrutinise legislation in response to the sort of valid point that my hon. Friend makes, and we want to continue such improvements as quickly as practical.

Nick Harvey: The Commission plans to consider the matter shortly at one of its next meetings.

Martin Linton: I am glad to hear that, but since the original Braithwaite report recommended in 1999 that there should be a review in five years' time and since seven years have now passed, does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it is high time that there was a review—unless, of course, he believe that the administration of the House could not be improved?

Julie Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I am sure that he welcomed the decision made by the House a couple of weeks' ago about the ban to be introduced in most workplaces and public places. Does he not think that the House of Commons should take a lead and implement the proposals that we passed as quickly as possible, and that our role should be to lead the nation?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Lady will have heard the answer that I have just given: specific proposals will come forward from the Administration Committee. It is impossible for the Commission to make judgments on the matter until the exact form of the new legislation and regulations is clear, but those are the sort of issues that the Administration Committee will have the chance to think about. The estate—including the vast majority of the catering outlets—is already largely smoke-free, but I am sure that there is room to go further and we await the recommendations of the Administration Committee.

James Paice: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create an offence of criminal trespass with a vehicle; and for connected purposes.
	The House is familiar with the many issues surrounding the Traveller population and the local uproar that arises, particularly in rural areas, when a group of Travellers arrive with one or more caravans and set up home on land which they do not own. Such land may be owned by public authorities, most often the county council, or privately owned. Fences and gates can often be broken to gain access. While the Travellers remain, they frequently desecrate the surrounding area, cutting down fences and trees for fires and then leaving piles of rubbish and detritus, sometimes including human excrement. The costs of clearing it all up fall on the local taxpayer or the individual owner of the land.
	I am sure that I am not the only one to have had numerous cases of that in my constituency. Recently, in the small village of Swaffham Prior, Travellers camped on the village playing field, preventing the football club from using it and costing the parish council more than £4,000 the first time to clear up and £1,600 the second time in legal fees to get them evicted and to clear up. That is unacceptable. A direct consequence is that property owners, including local authorities, have to take action to prevent access. Large unsightly mounds of earth or rubble are put in gateways and farmers use redundant machinery to block access to their fields. Why should law-abiding people have to do those things?
	The House will be well aware that Cambridgeshire is particularly affected by unauthorised encampments. Some say that that is for historical reasons deriving from casual labour for fruit and vegetable harvesting, but a minimal number of Travellers, if any, are engaged in such activities today. A far more likely reason for the large number of Travellers in the county is that successive Government policies have created a honeypot effect. While the Government use half-yearly counts of unauthorised sites to indicate demand, it is inevitable that it can never be satisfied. The Travellers know that and therefore go to the areas where the problem is greatest, in full knowledge that the Government will then put pressure on the local council to provide more sites. Nowhere is that more obvious than in south Cambridgeshire. In the past two years, the number of unauthorised sites has risen by 63 per cent., yet the number of authorised sites has also risen. Last July, at the time of the last count, in the whole of the eastern region there were 325 unauthorised sites on land not owned by Gypsies.
	Before I go any further I want to make two specific points. First, most Members of the House know that the village of Cottenham is my constituency. Unfortunately, it has received a considerable amount of unwelcome publicity over the past few years as the result of a substantial incursion by Irish Travellers. However, this Bill is not directed at that issue because those Travellers own the land, and the problems there are issues of planning and enforcement. The second point follows from that—namely, that not all Travellers cause the problems that I have described. Inevitably, there are generalisations, but illegal encampments, however tidy, must be stopped. In Cottenham, whatever the planning issues, the pitches are generally clean and tidy, although it has to be said that the surrounding area appears to suffer, and certainly a privately owned orchard has been destroyed.
	There have been a number of attempts by successive Governments to resolve those problems, some designed to help, some to hinder, but few, I am afraid, have made any difference. Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to drive a vehicle more than 15 yd from the highway on to private land without consent, yet there have been few, if any, prosecutions. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives police officers the power to move on Travellers if the landowner has asked them to leave, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 slightly strengthened that legislation as a result of amendments tabled by myself. Yet in the last three years there have been no prosecutions.
	It is clear to me that more must be done. In doing so, we should look at Ireland, which has addressed the problem robustly. In 2002, the Irish Government made trespass a criminal offence. The result for them was as expected: the problem reduced significantly. The result for us was unexpected—it led to a significant increase in the number of Irish Travellers in Britain. I quote from a letter that I received only this morning from an individual who had seen the publicity surrounding my presentation of the Bill:
	"My wife, who is of Irish descent, and myself often holiday in the Republic where the Irish people cannot believe their good fortune to be getting rid of their problem. There are thousands of these gypsies wanting to come to the UK".
	Even allowing for a little exaggeration, that underlines the problem as seen from the Irish perspective.
	My Bill does not go as far as the Irish legislation, which made all trespass a criminal offence. I seek only to make trespass with a vehicle a criminal offence if someone does not move on when told to do so by a constable. There can be no ifs or buts about this, and no spurious arguments about welfare—the people in question should have thought about that before they arrived at the site.
	My Bill also addresses other activities, not involving Travellers, where motor vehicles are used in trespass. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has drawn my attention to serious problems on the Tennyson trail, where off-roaders have killed sheep and caused serious damage to the landscape. Similarly, vehicles are used to gain access to property for an illegal rave, yet the police frequently decline to act to prevent them.
	Quite rightly, many people will ask where the Travellers should go. There is a shortage of sites in some areas, and in my view their provision should be included in local plans, but that is not the point at issue here. I came to the House believing that we are all equal under the law. It is not acceptable for some sectors of society to be able to get away with activities which the rest of us could not; nor is it acceptable for owners of private land to have to spend several thousands of pounds obtaining eviction orders and clearing up the abominable mess that is left behind.
	I conclude with a reference to a Bill that is currently before the House. Through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, the Government are, rightly, trying to prevent further damage to green lanes and byways by off-road vehicles. Why bother, if Travellers can continue to use them with impunity?
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Paice, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, David T. C. Davies, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Gregory Barker, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Mark Prisk, Andrew Selous, Mr. Andrew Turner and Bill Wiggin.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend has made a brilliant and insightful point, which doubtless makes the Minister's skin crawl as he remembers paradise lost and the brief halcyon era of the Welsh Assembly in which the Liberal Democrats led the way and ensured the only period of stability during the Assembly administration. He makes an important point, too, about the need to differentiate between the Government of Wales and the Assembly as an institution.
	In conclusion, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale rightly pointed out that that differentiation can be achieved with his wording, but I would prefer the whole thing to be called the Senedd. On balance, I prefer the word Government to Executive.

David Mundell: The amendment and the new clause are designed to engender a debate about the appropriate number of Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government and the difference between full Ministers and Deputy Ministers. We also need to consider how many Assembly Members are not members of the Welsh Assembly Government. If the Assembly contains 12 Ministers, the First Minister and Presiding Officers, then the number of Members available to carry out non-governmental functions in the Assembly is reduced. We must be confident that the number of Members who do not hold Government office is sufficient to scrutinise the work of the Assembly Government.
	No such limit was stipulated in the Scotland Act 1998, and it is clear from experience in Scotland that following the arrival of an institution the number of Ministers can grow exponentially. Scotland had five Ministers under the Conservative Government, but it now has 22 Ministers performing the same functionsat a significantly greater cost.
	Irrespective of whether one argues in favour of devolution, it cannot be argued that more people doing the same thing is a successful form of it. We must instead focus on whether the proposed number of Ministers is appropriate in light of the value that they bring to the role and the ability of the Assembly's Committees to function satisfactorily. The ability of Committees to function with a number of non-governmental or Presiding Officer's Members would leave in the mid-40s the number of Members who are available for Committee work. The provision does not differentiate the role of Minister from that of Deputy Minister, so we could end up with 12 fully paid Ministers.
	Throughout the debate, there has been inconsistency about what should be in the Assembly's Standing Orders and what should be in the Bill. We must be clear about whether the Assembly should determine through its own procedures how many Ministers it has. If we are going to determine the number, we must ensure that the ministerial cohort is effective. There is no point in having 12 Ministers simply because the Bill says that there can be that number.
	We also need to clarify whether the proposed arrangements are thought of purely in the context of part 3 arrangements. If part 4 arrangements were to come into being, would the number stay the same or need to be revised?
	In Committee, there was considerable debate about an amendment that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) tabled and how many Assembly Members were needed to make the Assembly function more effectively, especially in the context of the part 4 powers. Although the amendment was not successful, it is important to focus on the right number of Members for an effective Assembly Chamber.
	The Government have already changed their minds about the Scottish Parliament. In the Scotland Act, the Government's initial policy was to link the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament directly with that of Westminster Members of Parliament representing Scotland. I fear that the Government's guiding principle in constitutional mattersexpediencyprevailed and the link was broken. The Scottish Parliament will continue to have 129 Members, who no longer relate to the constituencies of Scottish Members of this House. At least that decision led to the Arbuthnott report, about which we have heard much, and has been useful for the debate on the Bill. Indeed, the Arbuthnott report has been discussed more here, in the context of the measure, than in the Scottish Parliament or by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
	A difficult position has been created whereby there is no link between Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. That problem would clearly arise in the Welsh Assembly if there were to be more Assembly Members. It is therefore especially interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, that Labour Members appear to be completely unwilling to discuss appropriate numbers, should the part 4 provisions come into force.
	It is appropriate to encourage debate on the appropriate number of Assembly Members to allow the Assembly to function with a Government of the size that the Government propose or in accordance with our amendment. I hope that our amendments will facilitate the debate.

Nick Ainger: The issue is not what percentage of the governing party is in government, but what percentage of the whole Assembly is in government. A considerable percentage of the Labour party is in government in this place, but the issue is the proportion of Parliament that is in government. I shall return to this point in due course.
	Currently, there are eight Cabinet Ministers in the Assembly, in addition to the First Minister, and four Deputy Ministers. On comparing that figure with the UK Parliament, it is clear that it is not disproportionate. There are 90 Ministers, including Whips, and 51 Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the House of Commons21.8 per cent. of its total membership. Our proposed limit for the Assembly, taken together with the First Minister and the Counsel General, represents 23.3 per cent. of total Assembly membership if the Counsel General is also an Assembly Member, or 21.7 per cent. if he or she is not. So the proportion is very similar to that in this place.
	In the light of that and of the Presiding Officer's suggestionit is supported by the First Ministerthat the Assembly sit post-May 2007 for considerably longer, there should be no problem with scrutiny. However, it is not necessary to limit the First Minister's discretion concerning the balance of Ministers and Deputy Ministers, as the amendment proposes. Should the Assembly have any concerns about the size of the pay bill, it will have powers over Welsh Ministers' and Deputy Welsh Ministers' salaries by virtue of clause 53. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that my voice will be more robust today than yesterday, and that the House will bear with me if I start to fade again.
	The amendments are designed to examine clauses 60 and 70. Unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss these clauses in Committee, but their selection for debate on Report gives us an opportunity to get inside the minds of the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen and find out exactly what the provisions mean. This debate also allows us to explore the ambit of the subjects that the clauses cover.
	I have looked at the explanatory notes to the Bill, and what they say is worth sharing with the House. Clause 60, which covers Promotion etc. of well-being, is described as follows:
	This clause provides the Welsh Ministers with a power to do anything which they consider is appropriate to achieve the promotion of the economic, social or environmental well-being of Wales. The power may be exercised for the benefit of the whole or any part of Wales or of all or any persons resident or present in Wales. If the Welsh Ministers consider that it would promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of Wales it may also be exercised in relation to or for the benefit of areas outside Wales or persons resident or present in any area outside Wales.
	I have to express a little surprise, as I am sure the Minister will understand, because that is so badly drafted that it needs close examination.
	The clause begins:
	The Welsh Ministers may do anything,
	and I would like the Minister to define anything, because Ministers may do anything at all that they consider appropriate, without any qualification. They are to be the sole arbiters and have sole judgment. They can do anything whatevernot anything within their powers; there is no such qualification
	which they consider appropriate to achieve ay one or more of the following objects
	(a) the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of Wales.
	I challenge the Minister to give me some examples of the sort of thing that he thinks Welsh Ministers may do to improve the economic well-being of Wales, and why they need that all-encompassing power. Paragraph (b) mentions the social well-being of Wales. How does the Minister define that? Is it something that would make Assembly Members happy? Is that an appropriate objective? What is social well-being in the context of
	the whole or any part of Wales?
	Next, can the Minister define the term
	the environmental well-being of Wales?
	For example, there is some debate over the nuclear power station at Wylfa B, the jobs there, and the accompanying aluminium plant. Rightly, those subjects have been raised in the House and are of concern to Members. What might Welsh Ministers do in relation to that plant to improve or promote the environmental well-being of Wales? Subsection (1) is very broadly drawn.
	Subsection (2) talks about anything that benefits
	the whole or any part of Wales, or . . . all or any persons resident or present in Wales.
	I presume that that includes any visiting non-British people, and people coming across the border from England, or from Scotland. Where is the containment of the power? Where does the judgment lie? It lies back with Welsh Ministers, who can decide to do anything that they consider appropriate, without let, bar or hindrance.
	Subsection (2) raises many questions in my mind, but if that were not broad enough, subsection (3) would begin to require some serious answers from the Under-Secretary, because it gives Welsh Ministers a
	power to do anything in relation to or for the benefit of any area outside Wales, or all or any persons resident or present anywhere outside Wales.
	As I read it, that means that Welsh Ministers can do anything that they consider appropriate, with nobody else sitting in judgment on them, for any area or any countryeven Ukraine, whose parliamentary system was prayed in aid in earlier debates, or anywhere else in the whole world. How does that sit with the devolved powers and the powers in schedule 5? This section appears to give Ministers the power to do anything for anybody, anywhere, at any time, and the only people sitting in judgment on that are themselves. Ministers have to consider whether their actions are likely to achieve one or more of the objects in clause 60(1), but that section is also at the discretion of Ministers.
	Clause 60(4) starts to describe the powers, but it is so broadly drafted that it provides an open mandate. Ministers can
	enter into arrangements or agreements with any person.
	That makes them competent to do anything that they decide is in promotion or improvement of the three areas that we have discussed. Ministers may also
	co-operate with, or facilitate, or co-ordinate the activities of, any person.
	Is that provision within the devolved powers in schedule 5, or is the clause drafted more broadly?
	Ministers may also
	exercise on behalf of any person any functions of that person.
	I hope that they will not be able to exercise any of my functions on my behalf. We need an explanation of who are those persons, what sort of functions will they be exercising[Interruption.] The Whip says, from a sedentary position, that I am rambling.

Nick Ainger: I used that phrase because the Minister for Economic Development and Transport might, for example, want to start giving grant aid to a theatre company that wanted to tour in Europe. That is certainly a distinct possibility and it would be good to promote Wales in that way. The Welsh National Opera already does that. That is the reason why I used the phrase within their responsibilities. However, as in the case of UK Ministers, Assembly Ministers are not necessarily creatures of statute. They occasionally have to take Executive action that is outwith any legislative provision that they have. That is why we need the clauses in relation to well-being. This is not an unusual way of doing things. The Local Government Act 2000 already gives powers to local authorities to take action and expend money for the benefit and well-being of the people they serve.

Nick Ainger: The provisions were not in exactly this form, but we are putting them in this form because we are trying to clarify exactly what Ministers can do and what the limits are.
	The hon. Lady also asked about the ability for a Minister to act outside Wales. I touched on a good example. If the Welsh National Opera was doing a major tour of Europe that could be used to promote Wales and help economic development and tourism, the relevant Minister could subsidise part of that tour as a way of promoting well-being in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; at least we are having a dialogue on the matter. If Ministers are going to act within the provisions of schedule 5 and the devolved powers, why does it not say that in the Bill? Why is the Minister, at this stage, giving Assembly Ministers the same level and breadth of powers as full Government Ministers in the UK? Surely this is another example of the devolution settlement being breached and broadened without people appreciating it.

Nick Ainger: To clarify the point, I am certainly not suggesting that a Minister would be able suddenly to take on the functions of a UK Minister. I am suggesting that, if a UK Minister were in a position to assist the good people of Wales, and there was a requirement for funds to be provided, that would be possible under these clauses.
	The amendments seek to remove or constrain the power to promote or improve the well-being of Wales to such an extent that it would become meaningless. It would create uncertainty over the powers of Welsh Ministers to act where there was no specific power relevant to what they wanted to do, even though it would be for the benefit of the people of their area. For the reasons that I have outlined, we believe that the power is necessary, as it has been for local government and the Greater London authority.
	Amendment No. 65 would remove clause 70, which would make no sense. The power already exists for the Assembly in section 85 of the Government of Wales Act, and is being transferred to the Welsh Ministers by the Bill. The removal of the clause would restrict the ability of Welsh Ministers to carry out Executive functions.
	Amendment No. 66 is unnecessary. The power in the clause is identical to one in section 40 of the Government of Wales Act. Although the provision is for the Assembly as a whole, the function in question is an Executive function, which is better carried out by Welsh Ministers. Welsh Ministers are accountable for their actions. If their actions were deemed unreasonable, they would be subject to action by the Assembly or by the Audit Committee, and potentially to judicial review.

Nick Ainger: I think that I touched on that. The Counsel General would be in a position to expend moneys to ensure that prosecutions took place, and I specifically mentioned that he could take action to assist other authorities in bringing prosecutions. Although he would not be given specific powers under schedule 5 or following the enactment of part 4, the Counsel General would be able to assist other authorities in bringing prosecutions; at present, no particular statute gives him the power to do that.
	We have had a good explanation. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the powers are not, as she suspects, huge and wide-ranging, unrestricted either by statute or by the Assembly. Far from it. We are making sensible arrangements so that Welsh Ministers can exercise Executive functions to benefit the people of Wales. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand why, from time to time, Ministerswhether in Westminster or in the Assemblyneed to exercise Executive powers, but I am not fully satisfied by the explanation that the Minister has given. A lot of points still need to be clarified, and it is unfortunate that we will not be able to do that at this stage. The fact that the clauses are closely modelled on provisions for the Greater London authority and local authorities has little bearing, because, as we have often heard, the Assembly in Wales is different from the Greater London authority and local authorities. If there are similarities, one would hope for consistency across government and that Ministers would apply the changes that they intend to make to the electoral system in Wales to the electoral arrangements for the GLA and the Scottish Parliament.
	The way in which the Minister has presented his explanation has led to confusion. I am not entirely convinced that under the clauses as drafted it would not be possible for a Minister to take on the functions of a Member of this House or a member of the Government on an agency basis. His assurance that the clauses clarify and limit what Ministers can and cannot do is as nothing, because there is nothing limiting in them. Ministers may well be subject to scrutiny by the Assemblyso they should beand by the Audit Committee; none the less, the powers given under the two clauses remain unfettered.
	I want Welsh Ministers and the Assembly always to do things that assist the people of Wales, but I do not want them to have powers that could be abused or are wider than they should have at this stage. To bring Welsh Ministers into line with UK Ministers is yet another way of devolving by the back door.
	Once again, the Government should have been honest about devolution, and perhaps they should have gone the whole hog and held a referendum. However, they have not done sothey are salami-slicing, as the Father of the House has said. The provision is another slice of salami, and it is being made by stealth, rather than in an open fashion. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 are small amendments, as I mentioned. They do not fundamentally alter Ministers' ability to ensure the well-being of Wales, but they clarify the position and provide the limits that the Under-Secretary believes exist in clauses 60 and 70 as drafted.

Cheryl Gillan: I merely wish to press amendments Nos. 64 and 66I do not wish to press the remaining amendments any further. I do not wish to wreck the existing provisions, but provide clarity and certainty, which have not been afforded by the way in which the Bill has been drafted.
	May I hasten to comfort the hon. Gentleman? I certainly do not wish to remove clauses 60 and 70. In fact, the original proposal to delete those clauses was designed to enable Committee members to discuss the subject. We were not given the time to hold such a discussion in Committee so, unfortunately, we must do so on Report. The insertion of the words within their powers in clause 60 and the addition of the word reasonable to clause 70 do not wreck the existing provisions. I have gone a long way towards accepting the Minister's explanation, and the amendments have the best interests of the Welsh people and Wales at heart. However, they provide a safeguard so that Ministers act within their powers. They offer, too, a test of reasonableness on the financial assistance that Ministers may, or may not, give.
	I accept the Minister's explanation about the Counsel General, but, again, a test of reasonableness would not go amiss. I am rather sad that the Minister could not accept those small amendments, but I should not be surprised as there has been very little give and take at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Bill. It is a shame, however, as consensus could easily have been achieved on many of these issues. With a heavy heart, I seek the leave of the House to press amendments Nos. 64 and 66 to a vote, and I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60
	  
	Promotion etc. of well-being

Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 35, line 28, after 'anything', insert 'within their powers'.[Mrs. Gillan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 282.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend; that is the matter that was of such concern to us in Committee. We tabled amendments to try to beef up the procedures, but they were all rejected. That is why I shall invite the House to take out the entirety of this part of the Bill. In my view, it has no place in the architecture of the legislationand indeed, it is completely unnecessary.
	If the Government were honest and true to their principles they would have no hesitation in putting the idea of Acts of the Assembly to a referendum, getting the necessary powers and handing those powers to the Welsh Assembly. There are arguments both in favour of and against further devolution, but at least that would have some intellectual honesty about it, whereas what is now proposed is a hybrid system that will grossly undermine this House's ability to scrutinise legislation, but will not give the Welsh Assembly any measure of sovereign control over its own legislation.
	The matters in schedule 5, part 1all important areas of legislation for the people of Waleswill be determined by a sort of minuet danced between the Secretary of State and the Assembly, in which the Secretary of State ultimately exercises all the control. A measure more calculated to undermine the principles of parliamentary democracy would be difficult to find. However, having seen the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, and what the Government seek to impose on the country more generally in that legislation, we should not be surprised by what they are doing to the people of Wales, who are being treated as guinea pigs for their proposals elsewhere.
	The longer we debated this issue in Committee, the less persuaded I was that these measures were necessary. If the Government had the courage to bring devolution a further notch forward, they would accept the need for a referendum and Assembly Acts. Moreover, there are so many downsides to the proposals, which risk producing an environment in which the ability to scrutinise legislation and determine it properly will be seriously undermined.

Dominic Grieve: Not at all; this highlights the nub of the issue. It is possible to have a perfectly reasoned debate about whether the Welsh Assembly should be granted more powers. I am aware that within Wales, and outside it, there will be people with different opinions on that subject. There are perfectly valid arguments that Wales should follow the pattern of Scotland and have primary legislative powers, and that the Welsh Assembly should acquire sovereign authority over areas of legislative competence, if that is what is desired. That, in a sense, is what the Government propose in part 4.
	I shall make something clear again, both to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and to the Ministerand, indeed, to anybody else. We have said all along that if that is what the Government seek to do, it is right that they should put it to the people of Wales, and if the people of Wales want it, they should have it. That is why we shall certainly not oppose the measures in part 4.
	My colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have views on that subject, and are perfectly entitled to put them forward and argue that greater powers should be devolved to Wales. That is what an evolving democracy is aboutjust as people are also entitled to argue that that should not happen. My objection is not to the principle that there might be further devolution to Wales, but to the hybrid system that the Government seek to set up to avoid having to ask the Welsh people a referendum question, because they know that would be embarrassing within their own party.

Dominic Grieve: It is true that the people of Wales will have no referendum on the part 3 proposals. My hon. Friend will have noticed that one of our amendment would require a referendum to be held. The people of Wales should be consulted on whether they wish to be governed by Order in Council, but the Government have never consulted the people of Wales on part 3. It was dreamt up by bureaucrats and will be imposed on the people of Wales. It suits the Government because it resolves the internal problems in the Labour party, with some members set against further devolution and some wanting much more.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly do not suggest that the problems date only from 1997some of them predate 1997. I want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on one point. He talks about pre-legislative scrutiny, but of whatthe Order in Council or the draft measure? That was the point I made to the Minister, who in Committee made a considerable error that he subsequently had to correct by writing to people. He said:
	the preliminary draft measure, along with its explanatory memorandum, will be attached. It will therefore, going through its pre-legislative scrutiny, be amendable.[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 121.]
	He had to withdraw those comments, but I did not understand from them that we would not see the preliminary draft measure; yet I understand from what he said earlier today that we shall not see it, so how can we even consider, in pre-legislative scrutiny terms, what the measure will be?

John Gummer: Subtlety never was a great Liberal virtue, but let me try to explain what is a very clear subtlety in this matter. It should not matter to the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members will have different views on devolution; what should matter to him is whether the people of Wales will be given an opportunity to decide what they think about devolution. He as a Liberal of all thingsthis is why I find the Liberals so unacceptable in almost all circumstances and this is the point of my speech with which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd can agreeand the fact is that they are always illiberal in reality. When people ask them, Are you going to stand up for democracy, choice and people deciding? Oh, no, they say, much better to let the Government do it, because we might then get a bit, and we might not have to face the electorate to argue the case. It is very interesting: scratch a Liberal and we always find a fascist. That is absolutely true, universally.

Lembit �pik: Lembit I. Aside from the somewhat distasteful language that the right hon. Gentleman has uncharacteristically used in his contribution, may I remind him of which Government most promoted the use of Orders in Council in the House? Was it not the Conservatives in their 18 years in government who set the precedent for using Orders in Council to govern this country much more than any Government beforehand? Therefore, is he willing to condemn the very Government of whom he was a part?

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the end of my sentence. If that were true, it is also true that a further and extraordinary extension of that has been done by the Government and is being proposed now. If I were to decide to discuss all the Orders in Council in the past with the hon. Gentleman, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would soon stop me, so I will concentrate on the Orders in Council as dealt with in the amendment. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it does not help in a logical argument to say, Because you did it, he can do it. I am arguing something quite different.
	Let us not become caught up in what the Liberals say is distasteful. If what I said was in any way distasteful, of course I withdraw any lack of taste in the sentence, but I think that the hon. Gentleman knows precisely what I mean. Liberals are illiberal when it comes to the promotion of their own views. They are thoroughly illiberal, and they would prefer the Government to impose such things than to give the public the chance to choose them. That is the fundamental issue. We are talking about something much more important than merely the way in which the Orders in Council will be discussed.

John Gummer: I will certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I had hoped to give you a moment of amusement in what might otherwise be a long debate on detail.
	If we now take the principle, being obnoxious, that the Government should arrogate to themselves powers that should be properly in the hands of a democratic Assembly, we should ask ourselves which democratic Assembly should have those powers. It seems to me that that is what the amendment deals with. It would mean that if there were to be devolution, it would have to take place in two ways: Parliament would have to decide to offer it and the people of Wales, in this case, would have to decide through a referendum that they wanted it. The Government wish to avoid both those principles. They do not want Parliament properly to scrutinise each item of devolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier, such items are part of a group, rather than a series of single items. The Government do not want this Parliament to make those decisions, nor do they want them to be offered to the people of Wales.
	My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, suggested that it would be valuable to put part 3 to a referendum. If the Government offered to do that, I understand that we would be prepared to withdraw amendment No. 4, because it would then be possible for the people of Wales to say what they thought of this political stitch-up. It would also be possible for us to flush out the varying attitudes to this proposal in the governing party. However, when the referendum was proposed, there was, if I may say so delicatelyI hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who asserted that he was not keen on my language, does not mind the word that I am about to usea certain amount of tittering. We imagined going round Wales saying, Would you like the Government to have a power of Orders in Council in order to be able to present things that you ought to be able to decide on? I can imagine the enthusiasm with which people would rush out to vote on such a proposal. The tittering came from not only this side of the House. One or two Labour Membersand there are only one or two in the Chambermanaged, rather ineffectively, to cover up their tittering.
	The question is more serious than was supposed. The people of Wales are not being offered a referendum on part 3 because the Government know, first, that they would be held up to ridicule and, secondly, that the people of Wales would say no. They would say no on one of two grounds: either because they wanted proper devolution, which is why I would say no, or because they thought that they did not want any more devolution, which is what some of my colleagues might think. They would certainly accept that this part of the Bill is a palpable ruse. It is a fake and a fraud, and not a proper thing to bring in front of the House. That is why the Opposition propose its removal. We are democrats and we want Parliament, whether it is the UK Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, or, indeed, the Scottish Parliament, to make decisions democratically.
	My difficulty is that the Minister has been put in an impossible position because he does not really believe what he is saying. I know that because he is a very good arguer on most things. He is clear, concise, comprehensible and comprehensive. On this matter, he has been opaque, long-winded, imprecise and, if I may say so, incomprehensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is a man whose mind is sharp and who seizes the point rapidly. The fact that he got to this point in the debate before he understood what the Government were about is a comment not on his intelligence, but on the Government's imprecision and, I think, their lack of knowledge of their own proposals.
	I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, interestingly, there was a point at which Members on the Government Front Bench and the Benches behind were busy trying to discuss what the Government's policy actually was. It was clear that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) put things in a way that did not quite fit what the Minister thought that he had been saying. It certainly did not quite fit what we thought that the Minister had been saying. If one has been around as long as I have, one begins to get suspicious when a Minister is imprecise, unclear and unable to communicate a key part of a Billthe part that amendment No. 4 would remove. One begins to wonder whether there is something up and whether things are not quite as they seemof course, they are not at all as they seem.
	Right the way through the debate, the House has been told that we are creating a system that will enable the Welsh Assembly to get more legislation through more rapidly and more sensibly, in terms that are denied it because of the heavy burden on this House. That would sound all right if it were not for the fact that the important necessary phrase, and therefore the Government have decided to take things into their own hands, is missing from that statement. The Government have decided that they will invent a system that ensures that control is no longer in the hands of this democratic Parliament. However, it will not be put into the hands of the democratic Assembly, but, in fact, into the Government's hands. That must be wrong for everyone, but because the matter does not have to be put to a referendum, the cracks between the various and interestingly different views of members of the Labour party can be papered over. That is why I come back to wooing the Welsh nationalists.
	The Welsh nationalists know perfectly well what the Government are about. When it comes to an election, they will say that the provisions are about avoiding the fundamental question of whether the Assembly is going to be a Parliament or not. If the Welsh nationalists were true to their principles, they would say, Look here, we are not going to provide the cover for this. We are not going to stand in front of the Government and pretend that this is another step on the way to devolution. Instead, we are going to stand up and tell the Government to give us part 4. We will fight them on the doorsteps and make sure that we win a referendum. Give us part 4 and do not palm us off with part 3. That is the heart of the opposition that is summed up in amendment No. 4.
	I, who have gone into the Lobbies with my Welsh nationalist friends, sometimes against a Whip, ask them to think seriously about what their position will do to them in the Principality. It will enable people to say very simply, These are people who are more interested in supporting a bureaucratic fudge than standing for the central issue of democratic control over the future of the people of Wales. In the past, there were better ways of doing things than the way that we ended up with, but, having got where we have, let us not allow ourselves to be led down the dangerous path that the Government have proposed.
	If we do not agree to the amendment, we will set a precedent that could be used much more widely. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not sat through every hour of the debate on the Billalthough it may have seemed like it from time to timebut it is right that the important subject of Welsh Government matters and the Principality should have occupied so much of our time. Those of us who live in the county of Suffolkone of the six counties that, for the purpose of administrative regions, the Government call the east of Englandnote that we have not been given the equivalent time to discuss forced regionalisation, which we do not want and which involves the transfer of powers relating to our police, ambulances and hospitals to a central body in a region. We are concerned that the pattern evident here, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) rightly raised, will enable the Government to say, If this is how we do it for Wales, why don't we do it for the non-existent region of the east of England? There is a lot of business in Parliament. Why don't we bypass the people of that region, just as we have bypassed the people of Wales?.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has to accept that I speak on his side on this occasion not only because I think that we should stand up for the ability of a different part of the United Kingdom to govern itself in a more effective and direct way than the bureaucratic answer being presented by the Minister, but because those of us who are being threatened by another bureaucratic nightmare called regionalisation see in this clause a means of removing from us the right to make decisions through local government that we have at the moment.
	As my hon. Friend says, we tabled the amendment because we need to stand against something that is at the heart of this Government's activityconstantly emasculating the House of Commons, removing from us our powers of control and not allowing us to devolve those powers as we think fit subject to a referendum of the people of that area. If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you feel that I am moving away from the amendment, I remind you that it would remove from the Bill the very trick that could be used to get round the problem that this Government cannot win a referendum in England either. Why on earth are they not offering a referendum to the people of Wales? I will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speakerit is because they know very well that they would lose it, and this Government have referendums only if they think that they can win them.
	We want to get rid of part 3 altogether, but I would hope that the Government, in answering, would offer something in its place. I am sure that the real answer is for us to withdraw our amendment and allow the Government to move forward to a referendum on either part 3 or part 4. I suggest that it should be on part 4, and I hope in that case that I would find myself campaigning in the more pleasant company of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) rather than that of the Father of the House.
	At least we would be arguing about reality, democracy, clarity, transparency and consistency. At this moment, we are offered something that is opaque, inconsistent, unclear and fundamentally dishonest. It is for that reason that I am pleased that this party has insisted that we stand up for democracy and against the growing bureaucratisation of our society, led by a Government who are frightened of Parliament, which is best illustrated by the fact that they have a Prime Minister with the worst record of coming here of any Prime Minister since we first started.

David Jones: I rise to support wholeheartedly the amendment that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Part 3 goes to the heart of what I consider to be a most reprehensible and devious piece of legislation proposed by this Government.
	The Government seek to portray part 3 as an innocuous measure aimed at modestly increasing or, if you like, streamlining the powers of the Assembly. Were that indeed the case I have no doubt that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends would have any problems with it and we would not be taking up the time of the House. The Assembly is now a fact of life in Wales. It may not yet be working entirely satisfactorily but it is part of the fabric of government in Wales and we all have a duty to make it work as best it can. However, part 3 is not a modest measure. It is a measure aimed at conferring primary legislative competence on the Assembly on a piecemeal basis. It is therefore, by any measure, a major constitutional innovation which, if enacted, will transfer a significant degree of legislative competence from this place to another legislative body.
	That such transfer is, as I say, on a piecemeal basis through Orders in Council does not render it any less significant. The fact is that, over time, more and more primary powers will be ceded by Parliament to the Assembly, subject of course always to the executive filtration process of the Secretary of State, which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) I find particularly repugnant.
	It is generally agreed that the convention that has developed in this country is that if primary powers are ceded by Parliament to another body, a referendum should first take place in which the will of the people is consulted. That is what happened in Wales in 1997; that is what should happen now. The Government know that. Part 4 provides for such a referendum and that referendum must take place before Assembly Acts may be passed, but Assembly Measures will be no less primary legislation, so the question is: why will the Government not give the people of Wales the simple right to vote on the proposals in a referendum? The answer is simple: they know that they would lose.
	The Secretary of State has already acknowledged that there is no consensus in Wales for more primary powers for the Assembly. On 15 June last year, he said:
	we will call a referendum only if there is a consensus for one. There is no consensus for one now, and it would be lost.[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 266.]
	and recently the right hon. Gentleman said that neither he nor the Welsh First Minister was
	in the business of calling referendums we are going to lose.
	That is all well and good, but if the Secretary of State fears that the people of Wales would vote against the transfer of primary powers to the Assembly, why is he so insistent on inflicting those powers on the people of Wales, whether or not they want them?
	The suspicion must beI hope that it is not unfairthat some internal Labour party tension is prompting the proposals in part 3, which enable the transfer of powers to the Assembly while preserving the illusion of power remaining at Westminster, whereas, in fact, the power remains in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. The fact that the proposals constitute such a device was acknowledged by Lord Richard when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. What he said has been quoted before, but it deserves to be quoted again. He said:
	Let's be frank about it, it is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster and ask for primary powers to be formally devolved. It is quite an interesting device. . . . Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff.
	In fact, it is more than almost; it is the transfer of a direct legislative competence to Cardiff without first consulting the people of Wales in a referendum.
	That is reprehensible, and made all the more so by the fact that control of the whole procedure resides in the Executive and not in this House. The Minister shakes his head, but it is true: control rests with the Secretary of State for Wales, not with this House. The proposals represent a fraud on the people of Wales and the electorate of the entire United Kingdom. If the people of Wales are to have more devolutionnot an ignoble aspiration on the part of those who want itwe should be entirely satisfied that that is what they want. Part 3 is wholly unnecessary; it is in the Bill purely and simply to serve the internal interests of the Labour party.
	I say that we should proceed immediately to part 4 and consult the people of Wales now, through a referendum, on whether they do indeed want more legislative competence to be handed down to Cardiff. If so, we must abide by their decision and hand over that power. If not, we must equally respect their decision. The proposal is a three-card trickan absolute disgrace to the Labour party. Perhaps the absence of Labour Members indicates the shame that they feel. What is proposed is an illegitimate exercisean attempt to usurp the powers of this place. It is wholly reprehensible and the amendment should be supported.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister repeats what he said on Second Reading, that there is a legislative logjam, but we established in Committee that there is no legislative logjam. Why should we take seriously what he has to say when we debate these points when, in fact, he is merely repeating verbatim what he said on Second Reading and not engaging in debate at all.

Nick Ainger: It is not surprising that I repeat what I said verbatim: the hon. Gentleman made the same points on Second Reading and I am merely responding to them.
	The hon. Gentleman claims that there is no legislative logjam, but of course there is. The Welsh Assembly cannot get legislation on the statute book as quickly as it would like to. The Bill proposes a way in which to deal with that problem.
	Everyone agrees that the split between the legislature and the Executive needs to be established, but if amendment No. 4 were passed, it would result in the absurdity of a legislature without any legislative powers. The Assembly might have to wait many years to acquire primary powers in a referendum; in the meantime, Wales would be wholly dependent on primary legislation passed at Westminster, which would have to compete for time with UK Government priorities.

Dominic Grieve: I suspect that the Minister and I agree on one thingamendment No. 59 encapsulates the criticism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made of the Liberal Democrats. When faced with a difficult choice, they decided that the best way to proceed was to eliminate all form of democratic scrutiny from the legislation to enable the Secretary of State to have a free hand with the Assembly without any intervention from Parliament in part 3. I do not know whether they intend to press their amendment to vote, but I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 4.
	The Minister has been wholly unpersuasive on the matter. One of the most telling comments that we have heard during the debate was the confession made for the first time by the Government that they considered that part 4 would not pass a referendum in Wales. Regrettable though that might be to my right hon. Friend and others, it highlights the absurdity of the Government proceeding by means of part 3. The justification offered to the House was that the Assembly would otherwise wither on the vine, whereas in fact it can have a perfectly respectable and separate existence implementing secondary legislation, if that is what the people of Wales want. There is no reason why the Executive cannot be split from the Legislature in order to improve that, which is why we supported the part of the Bill which does exactly that.
	Our position is that in the absence of an assurance from the Government that there would be a referendum on the implementation of part 3, the only proper course of action is to remove part 3 from the Bill entirely. The people of Wales will lose nothing thereby. Part 4 offers them real change if they want it. The other parts of the Bill, particularly the splitting of the Assembly and the Legislature, offer them a new format for governance along current lines, if that is what they want. Part 3 should have no place in the Bill, and I urge every hon. Member in the House to support us in opposing it. If we do not succeed in removing part 3, I hope at the appropriate moment later this evening to press new clause 1 to the vote.

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 170, line 31, leave out 'such power instead' and insert
	'instead power to pass Assembly Measures in relation to that matter in the same terms as the relevant Assembly function or in terms differing from those terms to such extent as appears appropriate.'.
	No. 49, in page 175, line 7, after 'made' insert 'before'.
	No. 50, in page 176, line 17, at end insert
	
		
			   
			 Section 75(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43), if exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
			 Section 96 of that Act, if exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to confer additional functions in relation to Welsh local authority social services. 
			 Section 101(1) of that Act, if exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
			 Section 33(3)(a)(ii) of the Higher Education Act 2004 (c. 8). Power to require institutions' plans to include provision relating to promotion of higher education. 
			 Section 12(2) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23). Power to add to definition of local government body in Wales. 
			 Section 39(1) of that Act, if exercised so as to include a declaration that a contravention is an offence. Power to make provision about publication etc. of accounts. 
			 Section 46(2) of that Act. Power to apply sections 47 to 49 to other local government bodies. 
			 Section 47(5) of that Act. Power to shorten period within which body must publish information. 
		
	
	No. 51, in page 177, line 24, at end insert
	
		
			   
			 Section 45D of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31). Power to repeal school funding provisions. 
			 Paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 7 to that Act. Power to prescribe content and form of publication of proposals. 
			 Paragraph 12(2)(d) of Schedule 7 to that Act. Power to prescribe period within which objections to proposals may be made. 
			 Paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 7 to that Act. Power to make transitional exemption order relating to proposal for school to cease to be single sex. 
			 Paragraph 13B(1) of Schedule 26 to that Act. Power to prescribe period within which nursery inspection report must be made. 
		
	
	No. 52, in page 177, line 36, at end insert
	
		
			   
			 Section 77(4) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21). Power to prescribe period within which report must be made. 
			 Section 83(7) of that Act. Power to make further provision about obligation to provide information. 
			 Section 128(4)(b) and (c) of that Act. Power about statement of proposed action. 
			 Section 109(6)(b) of the Transport Act 2000 (c. 38). Power to specify date by which deemed local transport plan to be replaced. 
			 Section 24(4) and (5) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Provisions Act 2002 (c. 17). Power relating to health and well-being strategies. 
			 Section 102 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32). Power to specify period which is foundation stage. 
			 Section 108(2)(a) of that Act. Power to specify areas of learning in respect of foundation stage. 
			 Section 139(1) of that Act. Power to approve institutions to provide course of higher education etc. 
			 Section 192 of that Act. Power to prescribe content and manner of publication of proposals to secure regional provision. 
			 Section 193 of that Act. Power to make provision about proposals to secure regional provision. 
			 Section 197 of that Act. Power relating to partnership agreements and statements. 
			 Section 198 of that Act. Power relating to transition from primary to secondary school. 
			 Section 207(4) of that Act. Power relating to adjustments between local education authorities. 
		
	
	No. 53, in page 178, line 18, at end insert
	
		
			   
			 Section 75(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c. 43), unless exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
			 Section 96 of that Act, unless exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to confer additional functions in relation to Welsh local authority social services. 
			 Section 101(1) of that Act, unless exercised to amend or repeal any part of the text of an Act. Power to require prescribed persons to provide explanation of documents etc. 
		
	
	No. 54, in page 178, line 34, at end insert
	
		
			   
			 Section 30(1)(b) of the Higher Education Act 2004 (c. 8). Power to designate relevant authority. 
			 Section 38(2) of that Act. Power to prescribe maximum period during which relevant authority can refuse to approve institution's new plan. 
			 Section 18(2)(c) of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004 (c. 23). Power to specify documents to which right of access applies. 
			 Section 21(1) of that Act. Power to replace scale of audit fees. 
			 Section 39(1) of that Act, unless exercised so as to include a declaration that a contravention is an offence. Power to make provision about publication etc. of accounts. 
			 Section 52(2)(c) of that Act. Power to specify documents to which right of access applies. 
			 Section 29 of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31). Power relating to information databases. 
			 Section 31 of that Act. Power relating to Local Safeguarding Children Boards. 
			 Section 32 of that Act. Power to prescribe functions and procedures of Boards. 
			 Section 34 of that Act. Power to make provision about functions of children's services authorities relating to boards. 
		
	
	No. 55, in page 179, line 37, leave out 'paragraph 27 has effect.' and insert
	'the end of the initial period.'.[Nick Ainger.]

David Mundell: Unless I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, his intervention is an argument for the new clause, which provides that a referendum should take place in a fixed time period to focus minds on the matter, rather than some nebulous, distant provision. As many speakers have said, there is a lack of clarity about the Government's intentions. Do they want to increase powers and put the Welsh Assembly on the same footing as the Scottish Parliament, or are they simply conducting a smoke-and-mirrors exercise? The fact that they do not have the confidence to hold a referendum now or in 10 years leads me to suspect that there is no will in the Government or the Labour party in Wales to campaign on the issues in part 4. Unless the Under-Secretary says something new and surprising, we are not minded to accept an open-ended provision and we shall press the new clause to a Division. He may surprise us with something that gives us comfort or hopewe shall wait and see.
	New clause 13 is about the frequency of referendums and its purpose is clear. It would prevent a further referendum on part 4 powers from taking place for at least four years after the date of the first one. It would thus prevent the Assembly from simply holding repeat referendums at regular intervals until the desired result was achieved. We believe that if a referendum on part 4 powers is held and the vote is no, the result should trigger a period of reflection.
	A minimum interval of four years means that only one referendum could be held during an Assembly term. Any further referendums would have to be endorsed by the people of Wales at an Assembly election. We have heard much during our proceedings about the importance of election results in ascertaining the views of the people of Wales. It is therefore appropriate that they should have a say about whether a further referendum should be conducted shortly after a previous one.
	I am not fully au fait with the details of the repeat referendums in Quebec in the 1970s and 1980s, but asking the same question repeatedly until the public are ground down, through a war of attrition, either to vote in a particular way or to turn out in low numbers is unsatisfactory. It is possible to envisage repeat referendums being used for political purposes rather than for taking forward the constitutional arrangements for Wales or for the enhancement of the Welsh Assembly.
	Both the new clauses are fair and reasonable in the context of the Bill, and in the context of the debate about the appropriateness of holding referendums. As has been stated in the debates on previous amendments, the logic remains that a referendum should be held under the part 4 arrangements as soon as the legislation is passed, so that the people of Wales could give their view straight away. The matter would then be settled for a significant period. However, the Government are clearly not minded to do that and, in those circumstances, we would want to establish a process to ensure that there was a cap on the period in which a referendum had to be held. For the reasons that I have set out, we suggest a period of 10 years. In addition, new clause 13 would prevent the possibility of holding repeat referendums.

Cheryl Gillan: I offer the Secretary of State and all Welsh Members my best wishes for St. David's day tomorrow. I was at a delightful service earlier today in St. Mary Undercroft with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. Together with the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), we had the privilege of contributing to the service to celebrate St. David's day. I was sporting a daffodil at that stage, but I am not now because I gave it to a little girlI think from the London Welsh schoolwho was also performing at the service. I thought that that was rather nice because she was able to take it home to her mother. I notice that Members on the Labour Front Bench are already wearing their daffodils, but that the Secretary of State's daffodil is wilting rather badly. That, I hope, is a reflection on Labour's fortunes in Wales, particularly after this Bill.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their assistance on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) argued with great erudition, particularly on using Orders in Council to delegate law making to secondary legislation. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He is exact and precise, and he has not found his equal at the Dispatch Box in the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who I think is taking a well earned break, having been on the Bench alongside me for many hours, has argued from a position of great knowledge on devolution, particularly in Scotland. It is sad that the arguments made by Opposition Members have been swept aside by the Government and given little credence.
	There have been valuable contributions from Opposition Members. I draw attention in particular to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I am pleased to note that the three Conservative Members with Welsh seats have all participated in the proceedings on the Bill. I wish that the same could be said for Labour Members with Welsh seats, not all of whom, I am afraid, have taken an active part or interest in the passage of the Bill.
	I started on Second Reading with a positive attitude towards the Bill. There were some aspects on which we agreed with the Government and others that we drew to their attention in the hope that they would rethink their proposals. We purposely did not vote against Second Reading, but chose to highlight the problem areas of the legislation with a reasoned amendment, which we used expressly to launch our concerns about some of the matters in the Bill. With the new, strong intention of my party to try to make devolution work for the people of Wales, I had hoped that the Government would respond positively to our concerns, but that has not been the case.
	We see successful devolution depending not only on the support of the people but on some broad political consensus, requiring in turn constructive dialogue between the political parties. We have seen little or none of that during the Bill's passage, and I notice that the other Opposition parties also received scant responses to their points. They have been swept aside and ignored by the Labour machine, which cannot bear to be questioned on any part of the Bill.
	In fact, the only amendments that have been accepted are those tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I will examine carefully what the Minister said about that, but that appeared to be a Government-placed new clause and amendment because they came as very little surprise to the Minister. [Interruption.] Yes, the new clause came from the CBI and the TUC, but it could just as easily been tabled by the Government as by the hon. Member for Ogmore. I congratulate him on managing to at least produce some amendment to the Bill, which otherwise appears to be totally unamendableit has much in common with the Assembly Measures that it sets up.
	As the Bill has progressed, more issues have emerged, and even the Father of the House has expressed disquiet at some of the provisions. Various claims of support put forward by the Government have not prospered under close scrutiny, and it has become apparent that Labour is putting party politics before the interests of people in Wales. If we are to have a devolution arrangement in Wales that is built to last, we will need more thought and consultation with the people of Wales than is evidenced by this Bill, and all-party support as far as possible.
	Briefly, taking the parts in turn, on part 1 we agree with many of the provisions. However, the partisan way in which the Government have plucked out a change to the electoral arrangements to placate their own party members and against any clear advice from the Arbuthnott commission, the Electoral Commission, leading academics and even Labour-sponsored research projects, has made a mockery of their attitude toward the Assembly itself. Even there, a tied vote on that subject revealed that only Labour Assembly Members wanted the change, and in Divisions during our debates in this place, we have had the support of all the Opposition parties. A further change at this stage will undermine electoral confidence at a time when education of the electorate would seem to be the priority, in the interests of electors themselves. Furthermore, banning dual candidacy may impinge on candidates' human rights. I hope that the Members of the other place will look closely at those provisions, coupled with those in clause 11.
	We support and agree with the separation of powers of the Assembly and the Executive in part 2. That, in itself, would have justified a Bill that would have received all-party support of the sort that the Government should have sought on changes in the constitutional position of Wales.
	Part 3 is fraught with problems. It introduces the Order-in-Council provisions, which amount to primary legislation by the back door, to cure an alleged legislative blockage, which has not been proved under questioning. I do not know who is the author of that tortuous legislative route, but it cannot be one who has the best interests of the Assembly in his heart. The procedure is devolution by statutory instrumentor, as the Father of the House said, devolution by salami-slicing. It is a device for saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another, as was pointed out by Lord Richard, whose report has largely been pushed to one side. Lord Richard has expressed some major qualifications in respect of procedure, so I hope that he and his colleagues in the other House will examine the proposals, not least because, if viewed in conjunction with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which moves the Executive away from traditional ways of legislating to Orders in Council, they lead me to believe that we need to exercise great caution about the ways in which we are changing our systems.
	We have argued that, if part 3 does indeed delegate the substantial powers to which the Secretary of State referred, that should be put to the people of Wales. Apparently, that is not a route that the Government are willing to take in respect of either the part 3 powers or the part 4 powers, unless and until they can win any referendum put to the electors. The Bill is not about consulting the people of Wales but about achieving a Labour agenda.
	The Secretary of State said that part 4 will settle the constitutional issue for a generationa claim that he repeated this evening. How can that be, when part 4 leaves the question of additional powers wide open? How can it be, when not even the number of MPs has been discussed, or the number of AMs that might be required if the Assembly takes on the full law-making powers set out in part 4? Some Labour Members have suggested that the whole electoral system should be reviewed; perhaps it would have been better to reflect on that.
	The Bill leaves the House with a lot of unfinished business and with a Government who are trying to create the impression that they are pro-Wales but, after scrutiny by Opposition parties, it has emerged that they are, in fact, purely pro-Labour. Claims have crumbled under scrutiny. The Secretary of State prayed in aid Lord Dahrendorf, Lord Holme and Sir John Arbuthnott, but his claims proved to be not strictly accurate. His claim that there is a legislative blockage hardly stood up to scrutiny, and his claim of abuse by AMs of the electoral system has not been substantiated. He has ignored the Richard commission, Assembly Members, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and leading academics to go his own way and produce legislation that means that the people of Wales will not be consulted at the right time and that will give more responsibility to the Labour Assembly Government before they have even got to grips with the responsibilities that they already have.
	The Assembly Government have not yet grasped the new local democracy with efficiency or effectiveness. They have broken promises to the electoratefor example, on free care for the disabled and free breakfasts for all primary school kids. They have ditched targets on economic matters, truancy rates and GCSE pass rates, and they have presided over huge increases in waiting lists for operations. That is to name only a few areas in which the performance of the Welsh Assembly Labour Government needs to be improved. To give the Labour Assembly Government more powers before they have flourished and got to grips with the difficult business of governing in areas already under their control is like suffocating the institution before it has embarked on its democratic journey. Faith in the Labour Assembly Government is fragile. Turnout fell at the last Assembly elections by 8 per cent. to 36 per cent., and the Electoral Commission said that that was the result of a lack of awareness of the role of the Assembly and a growing disconnection between the politicians and parts of the electorate.
	The Secretary of State said at the time that the low turnout was dreadful and that politicians were talking past the people. I agree, but it is the Secretary of State who is talking past the people in the Bill. I want the Assembly and the Assembly Government to do a good job for the people of Wales, and my party wants them to succeed. The Bill includes some good proposals, but the Government could not resist the chance to play party politics with it. It is therefore with a heavy and a disappointed heart that, to support the Assembly and to give the people of Wales a voice, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill. I regret that we were unable to have a better dialogue with the Government during its passage.
	I want no nonsense from the Secretary of State and I do not want to hear his usual track of alleging that Conservatives are against devolution. He knows that that is not true. We want to make devolution work and we want it to secure substantial cross-party agreement on many matters. Ours is not an anti-devolution vote, nor is it an anti-Assembly vote. It is a vote against a Government who put party before people. That is not good for the House, and it is not good for Wales. The Opposition will do everything they can to explain to the people of Wales that the Labour Government are trying to manipulate their future for 10 or 15 years on the basis of a Labour fix while they remain in power. I sincerely hope that they will lose that power at the next Assembly election in 2007. In the meantime, to protect the health of the Assembly, its effectiveness and efficiency, and in the interests of the people of Wales, the Opposition have been forced by the intransigence of the Secretary of State and the Government to vote against the Bill.

David Davies: The comment that we should all vote for the Bill because the hon. Gentleman happens to think it is a good idea is extraordinary, especially given the fact that in opposition, Labour Members often voted against Bills, such as the Maastricht Bill and even the Welsh Language Act 1993, which they subsequently thought were quite good ideas. They always put their party politics first. We are putting our principles first tonight.

Lembit �pik: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal were available for comment, I am sure that he would have something to say in his defence, but no doubt he is at home writing his next speech on Northern Ireland or Scotland.
	Although I have had a little bit of fun at the expense of Conservative Members, my criticism of the Conservative party is entirely serious. The Conservative party cannot be credible on devolution if it offers vague, warm words about hoping that the Bill would be good enough by Third Reading while behaving in a way that shows that its colours have not changed one iota on devolution. I believe that the mood of the hon. Member for Monmouth is in tune with what is going on in the Conservative party.
	The Bill poses real dilemmas for the Liberal Democrats. We are a pro-devolution party that believes passionately in the best devolutionary arrangement for Wales, which was set out by the Richard commission. The Richard commission proposed an 80-Member Senedd with primary law-making powers elected by a single transferable vote system, and the Bill delivers some of that. The Bill provides two pathways for the Assembly to gain primary legislative powers, which are otherwise known as Assembly Measures, namely the Order-in-Council procedure and a referendum in Wales. It also creates a strong and clear basis for the Assembly to exercise greater powers more efficiently by separating the Assembly's Executive and legislative elements. That change was so desperately needed that the Assembly was heading that way itself through various ad hoc measures, and it is to the Government's credit that they have formalised that distinction. The Bill is a step away from the Conservative anti-devolution strategy, which would significantly dilute the potential for Wales to gain primary legislative powers by putting a whole series of restrictions and conditions between where the Liberal Democrats would like the Welsh Assembly to be and where it actually is.
	So much more could have been done in the Bill, which is the product of compromise not with other parties or pro-devolution organisations in Wales, but with Labour Back Benchers. By caving in to internal pressure, the Government have missed an opportunity, and a number of points will need to be reconsidered in a future reworking of the devolution argument. In fairness, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has highlighted concerns that we share. The extreme concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State is not appropriate. The arrangement is almost colonial: unlike Scotland, Wales must go cap in hand to the Secretary of State for Wales.
	The Secretary of State can turn down requests for pretty much any reason. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, every one of the modest changes that we proposed to reduce the Secretary of State's governor-like potential to intervene was rejected. The Welsh Affairs Committee said that
	the Secretary of State's powers should be limited to refusing Orders in Council on the basis of procedure, not the merits of policy aspiration.
	The Secretary of State can shake his head, but he must recognise that the limitations proposed by the Committee have been ignored.
	The banning of dual candidacy has been discussed in great detail. We feel that there is no justification for that, as did the Richard commission. The Government have acted in a way that I can understand emotionally but is not right in terms of human rights and democracy. Having people standing in a list on a constituency basis does not devalue the integrity of the electoral system or act as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections. Nevertheless, we lost that vote, and Welsh democracy has been somewhat compromised as a result.
	We talked about the Barnett formula and the injustices of having a somewhat random formulation. I proposed, and we voted on, the modest request for a panel of experts to suggest how it could be done better, but even that was not accepted by the Government.
	The limit on the scope of the Welsh Assembly's powers is another frustration. The Secretary of State rightly commented on Wales's potential to be a beacon for the environment, yet the Assembly does not even have the power to legislate on power stations over 50 MW. That could become very significant in the nuclear debate.
	On powers over policing, we all know that the majority of people in Wales, and a large proportion of police officers themselves, are opposed to the centralist

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been asked once to confine his remarks to the content of the Bill. I hope that he will do that, otherwise I shall insist that he does.

Stephen Crabb: I am sure that we are all looking forward to the end of this long groundhog day, so I shall be brief.
	Ministers, I am sure, hope that the eventual passing of the Bill will be greeted in Wales with a millennium stadium-style roar of approval, but I believe that it will be greeted with an empty millennium dome-style wall of silence and lack of interest. We should not forget that nearly two thirds of the Welsh electorate did not participate in the last Assembly elections two and a half years ago, and I see nothing in the Bill that will deal with that problem.
	I want devolution to work. I am one of the Conservative Members who are open-minded about how the devolution settlement might be extended and deepened in years to come. What the people of Wales signed up to in the referendum, by the thinnest margins, was Executive devolution, not legislative devolution. What the Bill gives them is legislative devolution in all but name, through a piece of constitutional trickery. That is why, with a heavy heart, I shall vote against the Bill this evening. I want the Assembly to workI want it to be an expression of a vibrant political culture in Wales. However, I consider the Bill to be deeply flawed.

Nia Griffith: It gives me great pleasure to speak on Third Reading. I know that my predecessor James Griffiths, the first Secretary of State for Wales, would have been proud to see the Bill become law. He was very clear that there should be a Wales Office. He was also very clear that there should be a strong voice for Wales in the Cabinet. He was an enthusiastic advocate of devolution long before it became popular. At the same time, he did not want independence for Waleshe saw Wales as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
	To me, the Bill represents an important step in bringing decision-making nearer to the peoplethe people who will be affected by the decisions. Given the increasing emphasis on globalisation, it is important for us to find the correct level for each type of collaboration and each type of legislation. I believe that the Bill brings power to a more appropriate level. At a European level, we can discuss issues such as the environment and working together to maintain decent working conditions and standards of living for workers across the European Union, while ensuring that our own workers are not undercut.
	In this place, we discuss issues appropriate to the UK as a nation, such as defence, finance and law and order. The Bill will enable the Assembly to have a much greater degree of flexibilitya flexibility that will allow it to reflect more truly in its legislation the particular concerns and wishes of the people of Wales. As I said, I see the Bill as an important step in bringing decision making closer to the people. We need to go further and to ensure that we listen more carefully to our town and community councils. We must renew and strengthen our community spirit and get more people involved in the decision-making process.
	Although the list system has been much criticised, it does give a much louder voice to those voters whose parties do not do so well under the first-past-the-post system. They have the Labour party to thank for that. The Assembly is a very representative body that reflects the diversity of community and politics in Wales. The Bill will give it greater opportunity to reflect the needs and wishes of the people of Wales. I look forward to attending the opening of the new Assembly building tomorrow, and I wish the Assembly as an institution a very successful future.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to speak towards the end of the very long process of our dealings with the Bill. I spoke on Second Reading, I spoke in Committee, and I am pleased to be here at the denouement. I am also pleased to see that at the end of the long process of Welsh debate on what will become the Government of Wales Act, many English Members are gathering on the Benches here to see it through[Interruption.] And Scottish and Northern Ireland Members, too.
	I begin by congratulating fellow Members on the arduous journey of these debates, and on bringing the Bill to what I hope will be a successful conclusion, which we shall see in a few moments. I also thank the Chairman and the members of the Welsh Affairs Committee, who have contributed so strongly to the development of the Bill with their ideas. I want to mention the members of the Wales TUC and the CBI, whose support has undoubtedlyalbeit on one small part in one clausecontributed significantly to ensuring that the voices not only of employers, but of employees and unions are more firmly represented in the Bill than has previously been the case in legislation. That recognises the good work that the Welsh Assembly has already done in dealing with the affairs of business, and also puts it there right in front of us so that there can be no retreat.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) mentioned that we now have half a loafbut my reading of the situation is that at the moment, half a loaf is what is being demanded. There is no stomach for anything more than what is on offer. However, this is a still a process, and there are still questions. Devolution was never a moment in time, or a definitive statement followed by a stop.
	What is in the Bill undoubtedly will not satisfy some Members here because it does not go far enough for them. For others, it goes much too far, and they would like us to roll back the whole thing. I have been speaking to my constituents since the start of the process, at the time of Second Reading and all the way through. I have to say that there are not many people knocking on my surgery door to ask about the Billand when we do get into discussion about it, there is no great appetite for running headlong into further referendums and transfers of primary powers. However, what there isand what the Bill in its present form recognisesis the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government are starting to deliver well. They are starting to be recognised more and more by the Welsh people for the way in which they connect with communities, consult and, at a very local level, do far more than the old Welsh Office used to do. That is good, but there is no appetite to rush headlong any further.
	The three main components of the Bill, and the split between the Executive and legislative powers, seem to have caused no great difficulty for most people. By and large, that was one of the easiest areas to take through. I think that all of us, or at least many of useveryone apart from the Conservativesare looking forward to maximum use of the Orders in Council, and to seeing that system working. It is a good stage development of the devolution process. Labour Members recognise that the Bill does not go as far as some people want, but we think that what we now have with the Orders in Council, and what we will be voting on in a few minutes, is exactly what the Welsh people are now willing to accept.
	The most contentious area of all is the idea of standing as a first-past-the-post candidate in one seat, losing and then, the following morning, being resurrected as a regional Member. We will never agree on that across these Benches, butas we have said throughout progress on the Billit does not seem right, in terms of natural justice, that there should be a Lazarus-like resurrection of candidates the morning after they have been soundly defeated. We will not agree on that, but we think that the changes are appropriate.
	I also wish to put firmly to bed the idea, which has been frequently thrown at us, that the most contentious proposal has anything to do with gerrymandering. We have shown time and again that[Interruption.] As has just been said from a sedentary position, it is not partisan, because Labour Members will be as likely to lose out as Opposition Members. I do not wish to regurgitate the arguments from Committee, but the changes are to no one party's particular advantage.
	I welcome the approach being taken by the Liberal Democrats and Plaid, because even though they are not happy with everything in the Bill, they have said that they will go out and try and make it work. Regrettably, that is in stark contrast to the major Opposition party. At the beginning of this process, we hoped that the Conservatives would say that although they had difficulties with some of the details, they supported in principle the idea of staged devolution at a pace suitable to the Welsh people. Unless Opposition Members change their views in the next few minutes, it seems that only one party in Wales will, once again, nail its colours firmly to the anti-devolution mast. That is a matter for great regret because, regardless of the difficulties with the Bill, it would be great to be able to say with one voice that we were all united.

Cheryl Gillan: I reiterate that it is with heavy hearts that we will vote against the Bill. We are not prepared to support devolution by taking scraps that fall from the Labour table, as the Liberal Democrats and Plaid are obviously satisfied with doing. In voting in that way, we will vote in the interests of the Assembly, the people of Wales and Wales itself. To represent our position in any other way would be dishonest.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have been called worse things in my time and probably will be again. However, whether the Bill is scraps from the table or half or loaf, what is on offer tonight is exactly what the Welsh people are demanding. It is a huge regret that at the last minute of the eleventh hour the Conservative partythe main Oppositionshould set its face firmly against devolution. The Conservatives cannot seriously hold their heads up high tomorrow. They cannot ever again say that they support devolution. They would be laughing stocks if they tried to maintain that position.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden), I take particular pride in and satisfaction from the fact that new clause 12which is unique to this Bill and has been incorporated into it through the Government's acceptance and with cross-party supportwill strengthen the links not only with employers' federations and small and large businesses, but with our union colleagues. That will be a major advance in the Assembly's existing arrangements. In major decisions on environmental, social and economic well-being, there will be a duty for the Assembly to consult with employers and employees.
	That is a huge move forward and I regret that this evening the Conservatives will be voting not only against devolution and the principles of devolution, but against new clause 12 which gives a voice to employers and employees. Alone in the House, the Conservative party is setting its face against the CBI, the TUC and devolution in Wales. That is remarkable and I look forward to Conservative Members justifying it not only to their constituents but to the head of the CBI in Wales and the head of the TUC.

Robert Walter: This debate concerns a serious situation in my constituency with regard to the future provision of housing. It exemplifies a conflict between existing structure plans and the yet-to-be-determined regional spatial strategy. It also exemplifies a dilemma because in the north and west of my constituency, which is part of the North Dorset district, the policies seem to be different from those in the eastern part of my constituency, in the East Dorset district.
	In the east, the debate on the proposed regional spatial strategy seems to centre on eating up more of the green belt, whereas it appears that the existing policy framework in the north, and the development of what is today a series of vibrant market towns, is being frustrated by the Government office for the south-west and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Planning, and the calling in of planning applications by the Secretary of State, is obviously a serious matter. It is not my purpose to discuss the merits of these particular applications. That has been according to the due democratic process, and if there is a public inquiry, they will be examined there. I want to examine what is behind the decisions to call in the applications, and more particularly the effect that that is having in my constituency and the implications for the future of housing provision there.
	The Government office for the south-west has called in two planning applications that were submitted to North Dorset district council for the Secretary of State's own determination, which would follow a public local inquiry. The main reason given is that the proposal may conflict with national policies on important matters. The planning applications that I refer to are in the town of Shaftesbury, which was recently described by one property magazine as one of the 10 most desirable places to live in England. I do not know whether that was because the local Member of Parliament lives in the town, but I suspect that other factors were involved.
	In that call-in, the inspector will consider the extent to which the proposed developments accord with RPG10, the regional planning guidance for the south-west; the extent to which they are consistent with the adopted Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth joint structure plan and the adopted North Dorset-wide local plan; and the extent to which the applications may prejudice the emerging regional spatial strategy and the consequences for the appropriate scale and distribution of housing development in North Dorset, including in Shaftesbury.
	The two applications are for outline planning permission to develop land for residential and mixed-use purposes. A total of 190 units of affordable housing would be offered in these schemes. They will also offer many community and transport facilities, a cycle-way, pedestrian infrastructure and the expansion of education facilities. The schemes are consistent with the existing local plan and the structure plan and have already been tested by public inquiry.
	North Dorset faces serious problems with the decline in its traditional farming economy. Younger people are leaving the area and there is a growing and large affordability gap for the indigenous population who want to live locally. House prices are rising fast and all the market towns in North Dorset require regeneration.
	The call-in raises important questions and serious matters of principle. The case has been called in ahead of the regional spatial strategyin other words, in advance of any approved regional policy. The regional economic strategy, which has been approved, states that affordable housing is one of the key elements in building the local economy. The provisions made by the Housing Corporation and the district's own housing needs survey show that the applications are consistent with the predictions of needin fact, they fall far short of the needs identified for affordable housing.
	The policy of the regional spatial strategy and Government policy in RPG10 are clear that the main focus of development should be on the principal urban areas, with some growth in other designated centres for growth. Development outside those areas should be smaller scale to meet local needs. Unfortunately, market towns in North Dorset have not been designated as areas for growth; it is self-evident, however, that the market towns need a certain amount of growth to remain sustainable. In the rural White Paper, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs acknowledges that towns in rural, coastal and coalfield regions have serious economic difficulties with the loss of younger people, low wages and heavy dependency on primary industries such as agriculture, which causes social and economic difficulties where there is a large change in those industries. The White Paper sees market towns as a focus for growth in areas that need regeneration.
	North Dorset district council has successfully set up community planning partnerships to assist the regeneration of the market towns. The partnerships have ensured a high degree of local involvement with and support for the development schemes. The White Paper states:
	We want people to be able to live in the communities where they grew up. In the South West there is a severe shortage of affordable housing for local people. We are doubling the Housing Corporation rural programme to provide 3,000 homes a year nationally in small rural settlements and we will provide more affordable homes as part of mixed developments in market towns and villages.
	The district council estimates that about 600 affordable homes are needed each year to meet the needs of the area and wants to focus development in its market towns. That is in line with the spirit of Government policy, but the current mismatch of the regional spatial strategy, the rural White Paper and the regional economic strategy leave Dorset people the losers.
	The letter that the Government office for the south-west sent to my district council on 4 October came as a shock to the local community. It states:
	The first Secretary of State's policy on call-ins is set out in
	a statement made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), then a Minister of State at the Department for the Environment Transport and the Regions, on
	16 June 1999 in reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Mr. Bill Michie
	who at that time was the Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Heeley. Mr. Michie's question was:
	To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about his policy on calling in planning applications under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central replied on behalf of the Secretary of State, saying:
	My right hon. Friend's general approach, like that of previous Secretaries of State, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.
	There will be occasions, however, when my right hon. Friend may consider it necessary to call in the planning application to determine himself, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority.
	His policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in his opinion:
	may conflict with national policies on important matters[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 138, c. 333.]
	At the moment, there is not a national policy in that area. Some cases may, according to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, but there is no clear indication that that is so. Some cases may give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, but I believe that the only national controversy is the one that I am raising in the House tonight. According to the right hon. Gentleman, some cases may raise significant architectural urban design issuesthat is clearly not the case in North Dorsetor may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.
	The application has been called in. I quote again from the letter:
	On the information so far available to the First Secretary of State the following are matters which he particularly wishes to be informed about . . . :
	(i)
	the extent to which the proposed developments are in accordance with regional planning guidance for the south west (RPG 10), including guidance on rural areas . . .
	(ii)
	the extent to which the proposed developments are consistent with policy advice in the adopted (2000) Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth Joint Structure Plan and the adopted North Dorset District-Wide Local Plan . . .
	(iii)
	the extent to which the applications may prejudice the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy . . . and the consequences for the appropriate scale and distribution of housing development in North Dorset including Shaftesbury.
	The key factor is the possibility that the application may prejudice the emerging regional spatial strategy. It is only emergingit has not yet been agreed. Does that mean that we have to stop? In my constituency, these towns need development. We are not talking about areas that have been ignored. The South West of England Regional Development Agency published a document entitled Raising the Game in which it looked at key economic performance indicators for those areas, including the market towns in my constituency. The percentage of the working-age population with NVQ level 4 qualifications and above is the highest in the south-west region at 30.5 per cent. The percentage of people with NVQ level 3 qualifications and above is 54.7 per cent.more than half the populationcompared with the national average of 45 per cent.
	The average employment rate in my constituency is one of the highest in the area at 82.5 per cent., compared with the national average of less than 75.5 per cent. It is a vibrant economic area, but it desperately needs affordable housing. The provision of such housing is the highest propriety in the Dorset community strategy, which has been endorsed by the Dorset strategic partnership that brings together all the local authorities in the country. The sustainability of the market towns is dependent on a certain amount of development through which districts can lever in affordable housing and economic development. The Government are calling for a concerted effort from local authorities to boost the development of housing to meet the urgent need for more dwellings, so it is ironic that the Secretary of State, via the Government office, has called in those planning applications in North Dorset that, together, would provide about 670 dwellings, of which 180 would be affordable homes.
	The sites in question provide the bulk of a major allocation for the town of Shaftesbury, as proposed in the North Dorset local plan, which was adopted in 2003. The strategy behind that plan and the reason for the allocation were scrutinised in the local plan inquiry in 1999. In reaching his conclusions, the local plan inspector noted that he had considered the objections made in the light of PPG3 on housing, which was published in March 2000 while he was writing his report on the objections to the local plan. The plan conformed with the adopted structure plan and regional planning guidance to 2011. Although the Government office raised concerns about the allocation at the modification stage, it did not pursue them or prevent adoption of the plan.
	In accordance with Government guidance, the prospective developers of the Shaftesbury site undertook a major consultation using resources provided by the Prince's Foundation to hold a three stage Enquiry by Design event, which involved the local community and a wide range of stakeholders.
	Planning applications were submitted alongside a detailed environmental impact assessment, and the applications were again subject to major public consultation and detailed scrutiny. The applications were supported by the town council, the local community partnership and, most importantly, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, as the site is surrounded by the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire area of outstanding natural beauty and is clearly visible from a significant National Trust property at Melbury Beacon.
	Together, the applications will contribute not only the 180 new affordable dwellings, but a new bus service to the development, new community facilities in the form of a community hall, open space and more allotments, and major financial contributions to a number of other facilities in the town that were required under the council's planning obligations. Without the contributions that the development will make, many of these facilities may founder, as the development comprises more than half of all the development proposed in the town up to 2011.
	I must ask the Minister to rescind the call-in on the Shaftesbury applications. I urge him to understand the grave concerns about the seemingly heavy-handed approach of the Government office for the south-west and the Deputy Prime Minister towards development in rural areas. As least until there is more certainty regarding the regional spatial strategy, I ask the Minister to adopt a more lenient approach to development in districts such as North Dorset.

Phil Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on raising an important issue for his constituency in such a logical and professional manner. I will use the time at my disposal to try and answer the points that he made and to explain our policy and how we may move forward.
	The hon. Gentleman's concern about housing is shared by others who have written to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and raised questions about housing in North Dorset. Several have questioned the Secretary of State's decision last October to call in planning applications for residential development at Shaftesbury, which I know to be one of the most beautiful parts of our country.
	Although I welcome the opportunity to discuss housing provision in North Dorset, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, on the merits or otherwise of the specific proposals, which will, as he says, be the subject of a public local inquiry later this year, and I cannot prejudice the Secretary of State's impartiality. However, the debate is timely, since last December the Government gave their response to the Barker review.
	We announced a commitment to increase the rate of house building from 150,000 per year at present to 200,000 by 2016, and to increase affordable housing for ownership and rent by a new partnership with the private sector to promote shared equity. The Government have just consulted, as has been mentioned, on new planning policy for housingdraft planning policy statement 3on delivering infrastructure using a planning gain supplement and on a new draft code for sustainable homes to improve the energy efficiency of new homes.
	Draft planning policy statement 3 sets out the Government's key objectives for planning for housing to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home that they can afford, in a community where they want to live. To achieve this objective, the Government are seeking to ensure that a wide choice of housing types is available for both affordable and market housing to meet the needs of all members of the community. We are seeking a better balance between housing demand and supply in every housing market, and to improve affordability where necessary and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities in all areas.
	As well as being attractive, safe and designed to a high quality, developments should be located in areas with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. Now we start to understand the problem. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has as its key objective sustainable communities in all regions of the country, and this debate is an excellent opportunity to reinforce that commitment. The current regional spatial strategy for the south-west, RPG10, focuses development on the region's principal urban areas with some growth at other designated centres for growth, which includes the region's main towns and cities. RPG10 advises that development outside those areas should be on a smaller scale to meet local needs. The emerging review of the regional spatial strategy, which the South West regional assembly is considering, seeks to continue and reinforce this direction while increasing overall levels of housing delivery across the region in order to meet growth needs and address the affordability problems that I have described.
	I know that there is an important question about what rate of housing development is appropriate in North Dorset to meet local needs. The Dorset structure plan set a rate some time ago of approximately 335 dwellings a year and that requirement is long overdue for review, and I understand that the emerging regional spatial strategy currently anticipates a much lower rate of 220 dwellings a year by 2026. Some say that that represents a major slow-down of development, limits the scope for affordable housing and threatens to put market towns in the district into recession. Others say that maintaining such high rates of housing development only sustains high rates of car commuting and provides limited benefits to local people.
	What are the possible solutions to that dilemma? I believe it important to look at bespoke solutions to issues and problems in rural communities rather than treating growth as a one-size-fits-all solution be it North Dorset or North Cornwall. The issue is about understanding our communities' needs and how our communities work. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, inward migration is a main component of population growth in North Dorset, as it is in the south-west as a whole. Gathering evidence and understanding local housing markets is a key step in ensuring that there is an appropriate mix of housing to meet local needs, including the important issue of affordable housing. As far as rates of housing development are concerned, there clearly needs to be a proper judgment in relation to demand and supply within the housing market area consistent with our desire to promote a sustainable pattern development for the region.
	The regional spatial strategy will set that balance with a planning framework for a sustainable pattern of development for the south-west, and in so doing it will set rates of housing development for North Dorset looking forward to 2026. The Government's commitment to tackling housing supply, to the provision of more affordable housing and to reforms to the planning system equips local communities with the tools to focus on solutions tailored to local needs.
	What are the Government doing? We are keen to increase the supply of housing and to address the problems of affordability. It is clear that there still needs to be substantial housing in the small towns and villages of the region with a focus on delivering more affordable housing. However, it is also important that the south-west owns the agendaif I can put it that way, Mr. Deputy Speakerand seeks its own solutions. Once a draft of the regional spatial strategy is submitted to the Secretary of State, an examination in public before an independent panel will examine the evidence around housing provision in North Dorset and the rural areas of the region.
	The regional spatial strategy will provide rates of housing development for each planning authority in the region. Most importantly, the strategy will be prepared in harness with strategies for housing investment, the environment and the region's economic growth. Together, those measures will provide local communities with a clear strategic context.
	I welcome the way in which North Dorset district council is helping to lead a housing market assessment for the wider housing market area in partnership with other local authorities in Dorset, and I am sure that that will go a long way to providing a robust and comprehensive evidence base on which to understand local needs.
	Draft PPS3 suggests how local planning authorities might use their local development frameworks to set the balance of different household types to be provided across the plan area. Those measures, along with others, are intended to strengthen the ability of North Dorset, and of every local community, better to meet its housing needs.
	Turning to our package of investment in housing, I am extremely proud of the increased resources that the Government have provided for more affordable housing. We have increased spending on new affordable homes to 2 billion in 200708more than double the 1997 level. The region's No. 1 priority is the provision of more affordable housing to help to improve the balance of its housing markets.
	I look forward to the report this spring by the affordable rural housing commission, which the Government have set up to investigate the issues surrounding the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. However, in recognition of the increasingly acute affordable housing issues in the south-west following the 2004 spending review, we have already allocated the south-west the largest increase of the English regionsup from 137 million in 200506 to 203 million in 200708. That is a 48 per cent. increase.
	Final details of the Housing Corporation's 2006 to 2008 programme will be announced shortly, but I can say that in the market area that includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it proposes to allocate more than 30 million in 2006 to 2008. Moreover, the south-west housing body has set a target to provide at least 800 homes in the smallest rural settlements, taking an estimated 11 per cent. of the total programme, with a further 85 million intended to be invested in other settlements in rural areas such as market and county towns.
	My Department has as its key objective sustainable communities in all regions. The hon. Gentleman, with obvious commitment to his constituency, has rightly provided an opportunity to reinforce the Government's commitment to a better future for the south-west. I recognise the problem that he describes and hope that I have been able to explain the Government's policy, which recognises the dilemma that exists. I commend that policy to the House and look forward to further debates on the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.